Comparative study of ventilation techniques with supraglottic airway devices in cats: volume-controlled vs pressure-controlled techniques.

OBJECTIVES: This study compared the effectiveness of a new supraglottic airway device (SGAD) in cats undergoing anaesthesia using two types of mechanical ventilation: volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) and pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV). METHODS: A total of 13 healthy cats (five male, eight female; median age 2 years [range 1-3]) were randomly allocated to either VCV or PCV. Five tidal volumes (6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 ml/kg) and five peak inspiratory pressures (4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 cmH2O) were randomly applied with a minute ventilation of 100 ml/kg/min. Various parameters, such as blood pressure, gas leakage, end-tidal CO2 (ETCO2) and work of breathing (WOB), were measured while using VCV or PCV. RESULTS: The occurrence of hypotension (mean arterial blood pressure <60 mmHg) was slightly less frequent with VCV (38 events, 65 ventilating sessions) than with PCV (40 events, 65 ventilating sessions), but this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.429). The number of leakages did not differ between the VCV group (3 events, 65 ventilating sessions) and the PCV group (3 events, 65 ventilating sessions) (P = 1.000). Hypercapnia was identified when using VCV (10 events, 65 ventilating sessions) less frequently than when using PCV (17 events, 65 ventilating sessions), but this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.194). The study found a significantly higher WOB in the PCV group compared with the VCV group (P <0.034). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The present results suggested that both VCV and PCV can be used with an SGAD during anaesthesia, with VCV preferred for prolonged mechanical ventilation due to its lower workload. Adjusting tidal volume or inspiratory pressure corrects hypercapnia.

Effects of pressure- and volume-controlled ventilation on the work of breathing in cats using a cuffed endotracheal tube.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Mechanical ventilation is essential for supporting patients' respiratory function when they are under general anesthesia. For cats with limited lung capacity, the different effects of volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) and pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) on respiratory function remain elusive. The objective of the present study was to compare the efficacy of VCV and PCV in cats under general anesthesia using a cuffed endotracheal tube (ETT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve healthy cats were randomly allocated to either a VCV or PCV group. Five tidal volumes (6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 mL/kg) were randomly applied to assess the efficacy of VCV, and respiratory rates were adjusted to achieve a minute ventilation of 100 mL/kg/min. Peak inspiratory pressures (4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 mmHg) were randomly applied to assess the efficacy of PCV, and respiratory rates were adjusted to achieve a minute ventilation of 100 mL/kg/min. Blood pressure, gas leakages, and end-tidal CO2 were recorded from 60 trials for airway control during the use of VCV or PCV. Data were compared using Fisher's exact test with a significance level of p<0.05. RESULTS: Leakages did not differ between VCV (1/60 events) and PCV (0/60 events; p=0.500). Hypercapnia was identified when using VCV (6/60 events) less frequently than when using PCV (7/60 events; p=0.762), but did not reach statistical significance. Hypotension (mean arterial blood pressure <60 mmHg) occurred less frequently with VCV (0/60 events) than with PCV (9/60 events; p=0.003). Moreover, VCV provided a significantly lower work of breathing (151.10±65.40 cmH2O mL) compared with PCV (187.84±89.72 cmH2O mL; p<0.05). CONCLUSION: VCV in cats using a cuffed ETT causes less hypotension than PCV. It should be noted that VCV provides a more stable tidal volume compared with PCV, resulting in a more stable minute volume. Nonetheless, VCV should not be used in patients with an airway obstruction because higher peak airway pressure may occur and lead to lung injury.

Clinical assessment of the efficacy of supraglottic airway devices compared with endotracheal tubes in cats during volume-controlled ventilation.

The efficacies of a supraglottic airway device (SGAD) and an endotracheal tube (ETT) in cats under general anesthesia with volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) were compared. Thirty healthy cats were randomly allocated for airway control using either an SGAD or an ETT. Five tidal volumes (6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 mL/kg) were randomly tested, and respiratory rates were adjusted to achieve a minute ventilation of 100 mL/kg/min. The dose of propofol necessary to insert the SGAD or ETT, the static respiratory pressure, leakage during VCV, and end tidal CO2 (ETCO2) were recorded. Dosages of propofol and static respiratory measurements for the SGAD and ETT groups were compared using a t-test. The distribution of leakages and hypercapnia (ETCO2 > 45 mmHg) were compared using Fisher's exact test. A significance level of p < 0.05 was established. No significant difference in dose of propofol was observed between the SGAD and ETT groups (7.1 ± 1.0, 7.3 ± 1.7 mg/kg; p = 0.55). Static resistance pressure of the SGAD (22.0 ± 8.1 cmH2O/L/sec) was significantly lower than that of the ETT (36.6 ± 12.9 cmH2O/L/sec; p < 0.01). Of the 75 trials, leakage was more frequent when using an SGAD (8 events) than when using an ETT (1 event; p = 0.03). Hypercapnia occurred more frequently with SGAD (18 events) than with ETT (3 events; p < 0.01). Although intubation with an ETT is the gold standard in small animal anesthesia, the use of an SGAD can reduce airway resistance and the work of breathing. Nonetheless, SGAD had more dead space and the tidal volume for VCV needs adjustment.